Law to regulate cyber goons?

http://www.cybervictims.org

One more strong amendment to the law meant for regulating cyber offences and this time I am little sceptical about it. The Tamil Nadu government has decided to incorporate the Goonda’s Act to curb cyber goons. Officially known as Tamil Nadu Prevention of  Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Slum grabbers, and Video pirates Act, 1985, the law is extremely powerful and its arms reach seven categories offenders: bootleggers, drug offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders, sand offenders, slum grabbers, and video pirates. Those who research in the area of social sciences including criminology, law and victimology, and those who practise criminal law, may note that in general, the typical offenders in such cases who are first nabbed by the investigating officers are often hired individuals or groups of individuals who work for organised crimes sector. The law definitely is extremely powerful to punish the big heads also. This law, if extended to include offences committed in the cyber space which reports suggest “has the propensity to disturb public order”,(see     http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/tn-will-use-goondas-act-to-curb-cyber-crime/article4218006.ece?homepage=true) would actually acknowledge the devastating damaging effect of cyber crimes. As I get from The Hindu, the law would be used to curb “ any repeated cyber crime that involves harassment, intimidation or cheating of innocent people in large scale”.  But the rest of the news report gave an idea that these definitions may be  largely meant for economic crimes and money laundering activities through identity related crimes in the internet. True; phishing, lottery scams, card scams, whatever you call them, people behind these crimes are becoming cyber goons who are no less than those which are already under the scope of the Goonda’s Act. In real life, the hired goondas may often be less educated and become habituated for need of money. Cyber goons who act as key players for phishing scams are well matured than these sects of people. But their ultimate motives remain the same: to earn money by illegal ways. In the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008), the offences chapter in Chapter XI already have bunch of provisions like sections 65 and 66, which prescribe punishment for unauthorised access to computer and data and modifying the contents and computer related offences, the controversial 66A which prohibits sending offensive messages etc, 66 C which prohibits identity theft and 66D which prohibits impersonation by cheating etc. All most all of them can be used in cases of phishing activities (off course depending upon the nature of the operation) and they prescribe jail terms which may extend to three years, besides monetary fines. To make the crime more severe, several Sections from the Indian penal Code like Sections 417, 419, 420 are also used in some cases. All of these sing in the same tune (with different tones): cheating and illegal monetary benefit.

Apart from these, is the Goonda’s Act needed ?

          I endorse Ratna Kapur’s one statement in her very recent article Rape and the crisis of Indian masculinity (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/rape-and-the-crisis-of-indian-masculinity/article4214267.ece). She says  More law — or calls for the death sentence — are not the answer to what is a deeply ingrained societal problem. True, one more law may not be the answer for ending the problem, but I feel happy to note that the problem which remained “cyber” for so long is gradually becoming “real”. The true scope of the law is yet to be determined. But I expect that it should not be misused by police personnel just for the sake of executing the law. We already have a devastating example of misuse of section 66A and the after effects must be taken as a lesson for all. However, I am still waiting to see whether the law extends its hand to nab cyber eve teasers too.

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2012), “Law to regulate cyber goons”, 20^th December,2012, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/

To speak or not to speak while driving:A confused law ?

http://www.cybervictims.org

Survived Bangalore traffic last evening, I thought of revisiting certain feedbacks from the police regarding the side effects of certain laws. Talking and driving have been proved fatal many times  on  Indian roads. Gone are the days when vehicle owners could be punished for driving while listening to car radios only. Introduction of mobile phones, smart phones, blue tooth etc have ushered in a new era when the lawmakers had to think of prohibiting the driver from focussing his attention to other things like talking while driving.  True, talking while driving can be extremely fatal. Particularly when I see drivers of public vehicles like the buses, trucks or  even auto rickshaws, I feel extremely   uncomfortable. The typical position of placing the mobile phone on his ear and clipping it with a hiked shoulder proposes every possibility of faulty driving and even losing mobile phone from the ‘grip’ if the driver has to cross bumpy roads with equal speed as an F1 driver. Each time I am in the hands of such drivers, I keep on shutting my eyes off and on to avoid viewing any nasty accident (fortunately my fear has still now remained a fear only). But can the law really check this habit of talking while driving?

The recent Motor Vehicle Amendment Bill imposes a hefty punishment for repeated use for cell phones, hand held or hand free device or any gadget which actually aides in communicating while driving. Cell phones, i pods, GPs devices .....all are included in the red book now. The feedback from the police in this regard was particularly noteworthy.  They stated that it would be difficult to prove driver’s guilt under this law. Cudos to the police understanding. How can an officer on duty catch a driver who may be armed with a blue tooth on his ear and asking the passenger for the direction? Why would GPS system be at all installed in the cars? Above all, it needs to be understood that in many cities, and even semi rural places (which are blessed with good transport systems), auto rickshaw drivers are often seen to build up personal network among the residents by exchanging their mobile numbers. Their services are available almost 24/7 and this is possible because drivers receive calls while ‘on job’ and if they are driving other passengers, they instantly contact other fellow drivers to provide service to the ‘customers’. Say it a boon of digital telecommunication era, but this is the hard truth. These drivers may not be financially strong enough to buy hand free sets like the upper middle class or upper class car owners. But their business network remains alive for whatever device they have. Majority of urban and rural population of India is still not properly introduced to GPS system;  “call a cab” is still a spreading concept for many non metro cities and in this situation, the easiest way to call for a transport is relying on the mobile phone number given by the good old auto driver.

Added to this, the law even though can prove extremely good to regulate for  safe driving, poses another question: the driver should not concentrate on communication through electronic devices; what if the passenger does the same? Human beings cannot keep their attention focussed on one thing for long if he/she is surrounded by various communicating elements.  Indulging in communication with the passenger or through the communication device of the passenger which is held by the passenger can also be equally dangerous. Many often wise passengers advise others to keep on communicating with the driver while on a long drive. This is a common method adopted by many to keep the driver awake and to avoid any fatal accident which may be caused due to silent, boring and even strenuous drive hours. The driver’s guilt again becomes a question of burden of proof. As the law suggests, the driver needs to stop driving while attending his phone calls. But what would be the situation when the passengers are equally “disturbing” ? It needs to be remembered that while physical safety like wearing seat belts, using helmets etc are extremely necessary for a safe driving and the law must be punitive if the driver faults in these aspects,  at the same time, checking on the driver’s communication activities during driving needs a very high legal and psychological understanding.

But I cannot stop praising the police officials who pointed out this folly. Keep it up officers. If this is the attitude, misuse of law can be prevented in a far better fashion.

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2012),” To speak or not to speak while driving:A confused law?”, 13^th December,2012, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/